On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 21:26 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Le 19 août 08 à 19:06, Tom Lane a écrit : > > Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Another thing I do not understand well is how people are expected > >> to work in > >> 8.3 with a function based API, without hitting Skype problems. > > > > What we've got at this point is a submitted patch for a new feature > > that hasn't even been accepted into HEAD yet. Lobbying to get it > > back-patched is entirely inappropriate IMHO. > > Well, there's a misunderstanding here. I certainly were lobbying for > considering a backpatch as I saw it as a bugfix. You told me it's a > new feature, I say ok for not backpatching, obviously. > > This mail was a real attempt at learning some tips to be able to push > the functions usage as far as Skype is doing, in 8.3 release, and > avoiding the trap which has always existed in released PostgreSQL > version. This certainly was a bad attempt at it. > > Now, my understanding is that rolling out new versions of functions > requires forcing dropping all current opened sessions as soon as > PostgreSQL considers you need to drop any function. I'll think about > it in next project design meetings.
I think that another option is to manipulate pg_proc - just do a no-op update to advance xmin for all functions that may have cached plans. UPDATE pg_proc SET proname = proname; then make sure that pg_proc is vacuumed often enough. It's a bit wasteful, as it forces re-planning of all functions, but should have similar effect than the patch. It's also possible that updating pg_proc in bulk introduces some race conditions which lock up the database. ------------------ Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
